Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Right about.....HERE
    Posts
    4,357
    Likes (Received)
    319
    Thanks (Received)
    43

    Default Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    15 states are now free to change their voting laws without Federal oversight. Once again, the Fed must challenge state/local laws in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan instead of the other way around.... That isn't to say that they can't be restricted again, the Fed just has to make rules that apply today instead of using the ones created as an emergency response back in 1965....
    “I say, imagine in your private life, if you decided that I’m not going to pay my mortgage for a month or two—first of all you’re not saving money by not paying your mortgage. You’re just a dead beat. “

    --Barak Obama


    You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not
    --John Lennon

    Lord of the Pings

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pasadena, California
    Posts
    735
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Thanks (Received)
    11

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Personally i agree with the SC on this one.
    I agree with you as well. Yes, it did have it's place back in the past. But it is not needed now.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,743
    Likes (Received)
    155
    Thanks (Received)
    23

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Pullinteeth View Post
    15 states are now free to change their voting laws without Federal oversight. Once again, the Fed must challenge state/local laws in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan instead of the other way around.... That isn't to say that they can't be restricted again, the Fed just has to make rules that apply today instead of using the ones created as an emergency response back in 1965....
    Personally i agree with the SC on this one.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pasadena, California
    Posts
    735
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Thanks (Received)
    11

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Personally i agree with the SC on this one.
    I agree with you as well. Yes, it did have it's place back in the past. But it is not needed now.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    6,988
    Likes (Received)
    512
    Thanks (Received)
    67

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    I don't think I get the significance of this decision.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,743
    Likes (Received)
    155
    Thanks (Received)
    23

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    Basically the way i read it;
    the way the voting rights act laws were wrote out, the states covered need to get the FEDERAL govt's ok, before they can change any state specific laws in regards to voting. So a state say wants to put in a law that you need id to vote (to prove who you say you are), or that you can get X number of days to vote if using an absentee ballot, need to go "Please federal daddy, can I" before hand..

    Which to me is stepping all over the state's rights to govern themselves.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,637
    Likes (Received)
    326
    Thanks (Received)
    41

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Basically the way i read it;
    the way the voting rights act laws were wrote out, the states covered need to get the FEDERAL govt's ok, before they can change any state specific laws in regards to voting. So a state say wants to put in a law that you need id to vote (to prove who you say you are), or that you can get X number of days to vote if using an absentee ballot, need to go "Please federal daddy, can I" before hand..

    Which to me is stepping all over the state's rights to govern themselves.
    If they want to govern themselves so badly, maybe they should secede.
    "We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."

    ~Paul Ryan

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,270
    Likes (Received)
    264
    Thanks (Received)
    35

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    Quote Originally Posted by CYBERFX1024 View Post
    I agree with you as well. Yes, it did have it's place back in the past. But it is not needed now.
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Personally i agree with the SC on this one.
    Agreed.
    When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly larger concentric circles around your own desk.
    -GEN Bruce C. Clarke

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    1,029
    Likes (Received)
    241
    Thanks (Received)
    46

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    I don't think I get the significance of this decision.
    The significance is that

    a) the court asserted that the states equal sovereignty prevents the federal government from enforcing section 4 of the EVR Act as written because the exigent circumstances that made the Section 4 formula valid no longer exist.

    b) this means that congress MUST update section 4

    c) congress is utterly incapable of accomplishing b), given the current political climate

    Therefore, the practical impact is that the Act is virtually unenforceable. Despite the rhetoric excess on both sides, this is actually something to worry about, because it has 15th amendment implications.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Right about.....HERE
    Posts
    4,357
    Likes (Received)
    319
    Thanks (Received)
    43

    Default Re: Supreme Court tosses portion of Voting Rights Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    If they want to govern themselves so badly, maybe they should secede.
    That is an asinine statement. 35 other states had complete autonomy to change their voting laws without clearing them through the Federal Gov..only 15 did not. The justification formula to not allow them to exercise their Constitutional authority was neraly 50 years old. So you think that states that want the Federal Government to follow the Constitution should secede?
    “I say, imagine in your private life, if you decided that I’m not going to pay my mortgage for a month or two—first of all you’re not saving money by not paying your mortgage. You’re just a dead beat. “

    --Barak Obama


    You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not
    --John Lennon

    Lord of the Pings

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •